WHAT  OF  MEXICO  ? 

(Abstract  of  an  address  before  the  National  Educational 
Association,  Hotel  Astor,  New  York,  July  7,  1916.) 

By  DAVID  STARR-JORDAN 


f 


First  Effects  of  an  Educational  Exhibition  Organized  hy  the 
Revolutionary  Government  in  the  City  of  Queretaro,  Mexico 


Published  by 

THE  MEXICAN-AMERICAN  LEAGUE 

70  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK  CITY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Columbia  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/whatofmexicoabstOOjord_O 


What  of  Mexico? 

By  David  Starr  Jordan. 

The  present  condition  in  Europe  is  beyond  question  dis¬ 
tressing.  It  could  be  made  worse  in  but  two  ways— by  the 
restoration  of  the  old  tyranny  or  by  the  suppressing  of 
national  existence  through  armed  intervention  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States.  Yet  the  outlook  for  the  long  future 
was  never  better  than  to-day.  The  wounds  of  the  Revolu¬ 
tion  must  heal  slowly  and  from  within.  In  nations,  as  in 
men,  rehabilitation  cannot  begin  at  the  surface.  I  believe 
that  Mexico  holds  within  herself  capacity  for  regeneration. 
Everywhere  outside  the  troubled  zones,  schools  are  building, 
great  estates  are  being  subdivided,  justice  is  being  estab¬ 
lished,  the  beginnings  of  self-government  are  arising.  Inter¬ 
vention  means  war;  war  means  conquest;  conquest  means 
the  destruction  of  the  growing  elements  in  Mexican  society. 
The  United  States  can  help  Mexico  but  not  by  force  of  arms. 
We  have  no  doubt  made  errors,  these  have  been  in  response 
to  the  popular  will  to  “do  something”  but  nothing  irre¬ 
vocable.  To  my  mind  we  have  avoided  two  capital  mistakes 
— the  recognition  of  Huerta  and  International  war. 

In  this  connection  it  must  be  remembered  that  in  1848 
we  signed  with  Mexico  a  treaty  of  arbitration  whereby  both 
nations  agreed!  to  submit  to  an  arbitral  tribunal  any  differ¬ 
ences  which  might  arise.  Under  this  treaty  the  chief  ques¬ 
tion  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico,  that  arising 
from  the  seizure  of  the  “Pious  Fund”  of  the  California 
Missions  by  President  Santa  Ana,  was  amicably  adjusted  at 
the  Hague.  The  verdict  was  averse  to  Mexico  and  the  sum 
in  question  was  promptly  paid.  We  are  not  ready  to  make 
“scrap  paper”  of  this  agreement  respected  on  both  sides  for 
nearly  seventy  years. 


3 


Mexico  was  long  a  Spanish  colony,  organized  and  ruled 
under  mediaeval  conditions.  Its  properties  were  owned  by 
a  few  royal  favorites — its  people  hound  to  the  land  they  did 
not  own  and  held  as  serfs  in  ignorance,  disease  and  super¬ 
stition.  After  a  partial  revolution  which  threw  off  the 
Spanish  yoke  but  not  the  Spanish  social  system;  after 
numerous  disorders,  with  deeds  of  blood  and  of  heroism, 
arose  Porfirio  Diaz,  a  man  of  resource  and  resolution  who 
held  the  nation  in  leash  through  a  combination  of  terror, 
affection  and  chicane.  His  method  was  “not  democracy 
but  business”.  He  accomplished  many  things  for  the  good 
of  his  people,  but  he  failed  to  give  them  what  they  most 
neeed,  education,  with  the  freedom  which  education  brings. 
Mediaevalism  ruled  as  before,  the  land  being  still  held  in 
great  estates,  most  of  which  were  originally  secured  through 
favoritism  or  bought  for  a  slight  fraction  of  their  value. 
On  these  properties  the  great  landowner,  as  sole  judge  or 
“Alcalde” ,  retained  the  power  of  life  and  death  over  the 
peasants  or  “peons”.  These,  bound  to  the  land  and  receiv¬ 
ing  only  a  few  “centavos”  a  day,  were  always  in  arrears 
to  the  “patron”  or  labor  boss  and  to  the  “hacienda”  store. 
From  generation  to  generation  their  only  heritage  was  an 
ever-increasing  load  of  debt.  “No  other  ranchers  would 
employ  a  man  in  debt  to  his  neighbor  and  furthermore  it 
would  be  considered  a  very  improper  thing  to  induce  a  man 
to  leave  a  neighbor  by  offering  him  higher  wages.  The  peon 
only  knew  that  he  had  to  stay  on  the  ranch  or  starve”. 
(Joseph  P.  Chamberlain:  The  Survey ,  August  12,  1916.) 

Moreover  vast  estates  claimed  by  the  monastic  orders  and 
sequestrated  for  public  use  by  Presidents  Comofort  and 
Juarez  has  been  returned  by  Diaz  to  the  brotherhoods  who 
became  again  a  power  in  politics.  The  “Home  Rule”  of  the 
local  communes  or  “municipios”  was  lost,  and  political 
bosses  (“ jefes  politicos”)  appointed  by  the  central  govern¬ 
ment,  dominated  the  towns  and  cities.  Concessions  of 
enormous  value  were  peddled  out  for  a  trifle  or  given  away 
to  favorites,  native  or  foreign.  No  doubt  hundreds  of 
foreign  enterprises  in  Mexico  rest  on  an  honorable  basis, 
yet  too  many  of  them  do  not,  and  some  of  the  largest  have 
a  history  which  will  not  bear  the  light  of  day.  Concession¬ 
aires,  American,  British,  German,  Spanish,  became  extrava- 


4 


gantly  rich,  but  no  part  of  the  immense  wealth  of  Mexico 
in  oil,  mines,  railways,  forests,  farms,  water-power  or  bank¬ 
ing  was  allowed  to  flow  back  to  the  common  people. 

As  to  Mexico’s  petroleum  resources,  the  Mexican  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  recent  El  Paso  Conference  made  the  following 
statement: 

“PETROLEUM. — This  great  resource  has  been  ex¬ 
ploited  exclusively  by  English  and  American  Companies, 
especially  by  the  Pierson  Company  of  London,  and  by  the 
Waters-Pierce  Oil  Company  of  New  York. 

The  concessions  granted  by  the  administration  of  Diaz 
to  the  Pierson  Company  paralyzed  compeltely  the  free 
exploitation  of  oil  lands,  even  of  those  which  might  have 
been  exploited  by  their  native  possessors.  The  most  im¬ 
portant  of  these  concessions  consisted  in,  according  to  the 
Pierson  Company,  the  right  that  no  other  company  should  be 
allowed  to  exploit  the  land  within  three  kilometers  of  the 
place  where  they  had  sunk  the  well.  The  Pierson  Company 
obtained  in  addition  the  exclusive  right  to  use  the  federal 
zones  of  all  the  east  of  the  republic  with  the  promise  to  deliv¬ 
er  to  the  government  ten  per  cent,  of  the  product  that  they 
obtained.  The  Pierson  Company  took  advantage  of  this  to 
survey  and  ascertain  the  oil-bearing  zones,  and  secretly  to 
buy  the  land  for  a  bagatelle  from  the  Indians,  thus  evading 
the  agreement  which  it  had  with  the  government.  At 
present  no  petroleum  lands  belong  to  Mexico.  Foreign 
capitalists  have  acquired  all  the  oil-bearing  lands  by  de¬ 
ceiving  the  Indians  or  by  taking  advantage  of  the  im¬ 
morality  of  local  authorities.  This  national  wealth  flows 
silently  to  other  countries  without  leaving  any  advantage 
to  the  Mexican  people.  It  does  not  matter  that  it  pays 
insignificant  custom  duties.  The  people  are  not  able  to 
obtain  cheap  petroleum  to  provide  power  for  their  indus¬ 
tries.  Irrigation  still  awaits  the  coming  of  a  cheap  com¬ 
bustible.  It  is  absurd  that  this  should  occur  in  the  country 
which  is  par  excellence  the  producer  of  the  appropriate 
fuel”. 

As  to  mines,  the  same  authorities,  Sehores  Rolland, 
Rojas  and  Atl,  continue : 

“MINES. — The  great  foreign  countries  control  immense 
mining  regions,  and  exploit  them  under  an  absolutely  ex- 


5 


elusive  regime,  paralyzing  all  other  works  that  do  not  suit 
them,  but  which  might  be  of  public  utility.  Wages  have 
always  been  so  miserable  that  the  laborers  have  only  been 
able  to  vegetate. 

“Due  to  the  capitalistic  criterion  that  reigned  during 
the  dictatorship  of  Diaz,  the  old  law  that  permitted  the 
small  miner  to  exploit  easily  his  reduced  holdings,  was 
replaced  by  the  present  law  that  favors  only  the  great 
enterprises”. 

As  to  Finance,  I  may  further  quote:  “The  bankers  have 
carried  on  operations  proper  to  usurers.  They  have  specu¬ 
lated  in  lands,  timber  and  every  kind  of  privilege.  The 
health  of  Porfirio  Diaz  had  a  profound  influence  in  the 
markets,  Mexican  finances,  functioned  on  a  basis  of  spolia¬ 
tion  and  threatened  to  collapse  with  the  fall  of  the 
dictator.” 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  in  some  regions  American  in¬ 
fluences,  contemptuous  of  the  feudal  regime,  have  bettered 
the  condition  of  the  common  people.  Higher  wages,  real 
money,  rational  sanitation,  more  specialized  forms  of  labor, 
were  all  to  the  peon’s  advantage.  But  the  process  of 
speeding-up  which  these  advantages  demanded  were  not 
often  to  his  taste.  As  Flandreau  observes — “No  people 
whose  diet  consists  chiefly  of  tortilla,  chili,  black  coffee  and 
cigarettes,  are  ever  going  to  be  lashed  by  the  desire  to  ac¬ 
complish.” 

Diaz,  himself,  so  far  as  I  may  judge,  was  personally 
honest.  One  may  admit  that,  as  Chamberlain  puts  it,  he 
‘‘understood  his  people  and  his  country  well.  With  all  his 
native  Mexican  cruelty  and  with  all  his  faults,  he  was  a 
loyal  and  patriotic  Mexican.  Mexico  was  his  monument.” 

But  as  with  age  Diaz  grew  too  feeble  to  retain  personal 
control,  the  system  passed  out  of  his  hands  and  subordi¬ 
nates  ran  into  wild  extravagances  of  oppression.  Diaz  had 
leaned  for  support  largely  on  foreign  concessionaires,  while 
the  eager  group  of  “cientificos” ,  “ clericos ”  and  “jefes 
politicos”,  over-reaching  in  many  directions,  made  condi¬ 
tions  unbearable  to  those  outside  these  favored  circles,  that 
is,  to  the  great  body  of  the  Mexican  people.  The  country 
was  ripe,  therefore,  for  some  kind  of  an  insurrection  to  re- 


6 


move  evils  inherited  from  old  Spain  and  to  abate  new  ones 
of  unbridled  spoliation. 

Revolution  is  never  law-abiding.  In  its  appeal  to  higher 
law  it  lifts  the  lid  from  society.  Whenever  traditional  or 
conventional  restraints  are  dissolved,  injustice,  robbery  and 
murder  have  sway  for  the  time  being.  The  Mexican  Revo¬ 
lution  has  offered  no  exception.  Rut  once  under  way,  it 
must  go  forward  to  the  end.  No  backward  movement  by 
whomsoever  led  or  supported  could  endure.  For  this  reason 
the  rule  of  General  Huerta,  avowedly  re-actionary  and  sup¬ 
ported  by  foreign  interests,  was  not  and  could  not  properly 
be  recognized  by  the  United  States.  It  gave  no  promise  of 
permanence  or  of  peace.  The  era  of  Diaz  is  gone  for¬ 
ever.  Mexico  could  no  more  return  to  it  than  France  to  the 
regime  of  Napoleon  III.  The  Mexican  people  will  find  peace 
only  by  deserving  it  and  to  this  end,  military  force,  their  own 
or  any  other,  can  contribute  very  little.  Bandit  violence, 
however  mischievous,  is  only  a  feature  of  transition.  It  is 
not  the  Revolution  itself,  but  a  temporary,  although  hideous, 
excrescence. 

It  is  a  common  custom  of  the  American  public  to  re¬ 
gard  Mexican  disorder  as  all  of  one  piece— the  Revolution, 
the  anarchy  which  the  Revolution  has  failed  to  prevent 
and  the  ignorance  and  poverty  for  which  it  set  out  to  find 
a  remedy.  The  Mexicans  must  work  out  their  own  problems 
under  their  own  leaders.  Thus  far  the  one  who  has  shown 
most  civil  capacity,  the  only  one  the  United  States  govern¬ 
ment  could  recognize  since  the  death  of  Madero,  as  de  facto 
administrator,  has  been  Venustiano  Carranza,  lately  gov¬ 
ernor  of  Coahuila.  Though  he  may  not  be  the  wisest  of 
Mexican  statesmen,  nor  being  a  Spaniard,  the  fittest  to  bring 
order  to  a  mixed  population,  yet  thus  far  he  alone  has  led 
the  way  out  of  chaos  to  law  and  order.  Our  Mexican  col¬ 
leagues  speak  thus  of  the  First  Chief : 

“In  this  great  constructive  movement,  Carranza  repre¬ 
sents  the  largest  effort  toward  the  realization  of  popular 
ideals  and  toward  the  practical  solution  of  the  problem  of 
Mexico.  *  *  *  Carranza  has  succeeded,  during  the  revolu¬ 
tionary  period,  in  unifying  the  popular  confidence  in  his 
personality,  and  has  slowly  become  the  effective  center  of 
national  efforts. 


7 


“The  American  people  naturally  desire  that  the  Mexican 
social  reconstruction  shall  complete  itself  rapidly.  But  it 
should  not  escape  their  comprehension  that  the  solution  of 
the  complicated  problems  of  Mexico  cannot  be  attained 
through  simple  desire,  nor  from  the  outside.  The  phenomena 
manifested  in  Mexico  are  in  obedience  to  social  laws  whose 
action  cannot  be  hurried.” 

The  revolution  is  nearing  its  end  and  one  may  now 
look  toward  the  future.  This  does  not  lie  in  the  hands  of 
bandits  or  assassins,  nor  does  it  depend  alone  on  the 
wisdom  of  Carranza.  It  rests  with  the  Mexican  people.  It 
is  for  them  to  take  possession  of  their  country.  What  are 
they  doing? 

In  all  of  Mexico,  except  the  war-torn  belt  and  the 
mining  states,  new  democratic  institutions  are  springing  up 
like  fresh  grass  after  a  prairie  fire.  Yucatan  has  taken  the 
lead;  I  have  her  new  statutes  before  me.  Under1  her  wise 
governor,  Salvador  Alvarado,  2,400  free  schools  now  exist 
where  were  only  200  in  1914.  The  great  “ haciendas ”  have 
been  bought  up  on  equitable  terms  with  state  bonds,  to  be 
subdivided  and  sold  in  small  farms  on  easy  conditions,  but 
with  the  proviso  that  if  not  worked  they  revert  to  the  state. 
By  such  means  the  peons  are  trained  in  industry  and  thrift. 
Other  states  have  followed  along  similar  lines,  fourteen  out 
of  the  twenty-seven,  notably  Michoacan,  Jalisco,  Vera  Cruz, 
Guanajuato,  Queretaro,  Sonora,  Colima,  Aguas  Calientes, 
besides  considerable  portions  of  remaining  districts.  For 
example,  in  Zacatecas  where  the  mining  territory  is  still  in 
confusion,  the  agricultural  areas  in  the  southeastern  and 
southwestern  corners  are  said  to  be  making  hopeful 
progress.  Again,  in  several  states  the  bull-fight  and  the  cock¬ 
fight  have  been  abolished  to  give  way  to  baseball  and 
“pelota”  (hip-ball).  In  some  the  sale  of  liquor  has  been  pro¬ 
hibited.  In  all  the  “jefe  politico”  has  been  abolished  and 
local  goverment,  after  the  fashion  of  the  New  England  town¬ 
meeting,  gives  new  life  to  the  “miinicipios”.  Of  this  con¬ 
structive  movement  we  find  almost  nothing  in  the  American 
press.  The  Mexican  delegates  to  the  Conference  complain 
rather  bitterly  that  “periodicals  say  nothing  when  a  thou¬ 
sand  schools  are  inaugurated,  but  if  a  bandit  assaults  a  train, 
the  press  declares  that  the  country  is  in  anarchy.” 


8 


The  disorder  in  Mexico  leads  to  constant  discussion  of 
intervention  in  the  American  press  either  as  a  “painful 
duty”  or  as  a  road  to  “easy  money”.  On  the  other  hand 
the  fear  or  the  hope  of  intervention  and  of  national  disso¬ 
lution  at  the  hands  of  the  “Colossus  of  the  North”  is  a  most 
potent  cause  of  continued  disorder.  This  is  a  vicious  circle, 
only  to  be  broken  by  a  direct  and  helpful  understanding 
with  whatever  group  of  men  we  recognize  as  constituting 
the  actual  government  of  Mexico. 

But  in  considering  these  progressive  measures  we  need 
not  be  surprised  if  sometimes  they  encounter  check  or  even 
disaster.  It  is  not  possible  to  always  keep  up  the  first  en¬ 
thusiasms  and  the  great  opponents  to  betterment  in  Mexico 
are  by  no  means  subdued.  The  practical  absence  of  a  sane 
middle  class,  the  selfishness  of  the  higher  caste  and  the 
ignorance  of  the  lower,  with  the  recklessness  of  foreign 
investors,  will,  no  doubt,  continue  to  hamper  upward  move¬ 
ments. 

What  parts  of  Mexico  then  are  in  disorder?  Mainly 
the  border  and  the  mining  states,  most  of  all  Chihuahua. 
There  Orozco  maintained  his  revolt,  and  after  him,  Villa, 
certain  men  on  our  side  of  the  Rio  Grande  having  been  in 
close  financial  relations  with  each  as  well  as  with  Madero 
and  Huerta.  Later  Villa’s  purpose  has  apparently  been  to 
force  intervention  by  demonstrating  Carranza’s  incapacity 
to  maintain  order.  Villa  was  also  doubtless  impelled  by  a 
desire  for  revenge  for  real  or  supposed  atrocities  committed 
against  Mexicans.  The  raid  on  Columbus  followed  closely 
the  “holocaust”  at  El  Paso,  where  some  twenty  Mexicans 
were  burned  alive  in  a  jail  by  somebody’s  carelessness  with 
a  match  after  they  had  taken  a  forced  bath  in  gasolene. 
The  affair  was  officially  called  an  “unavoidable  accident” 
but  it  led  to  Villa’s  threat  to  make  “a  torch”  of  every 
American  he  could  catch. 

Eagerness  for  war  as  a  result  of  intrigue  and  mutual 
suspicion  has  kept  Chihuahua  in  turmoil.  Americans  have 
often  reproached  Carranza  with  his  failure  adequately  to 
police  the  border.  As  to  this  it  must  be  noted  that  the 
border  is  1,756  miles  long  from  Tia  Juana  to  Brazos  San¬ 
tiago,  a  distance  as  great  on  the  Mexican  side  as  on  ours. 
Greater,  really,  for  on  the  south  there  are  neither  roads  nor 


9 


railroads,  and  Mexican  soldiers  can  be  transferred  from 
place  to  place  along  the  boundary  only  by  using  the  trains 
of  the  Southern  Pacific  in  Texas  and  New  Mexico. 

In  the  mining  states  of  Durango,  Zacatecas,  Coahuila, 
Nuevo  Leon  and  Sinaloa,  there  is  disorder  and  starvation, 
because  railways  are  broken,  mines  and  smelters  are  closed 
and  thousands  and  thousands  of  men  are  out  of  work.  In  the 
great  oil  regions  of  Tamaulipas,  doubtless  the  richest  field 
in  the  world,  there  has  never  been  real  order.  In  Morelos, 
Zapata,  I  am  told,  has  virtually  expelled  or  killed  every 
property  holder,  though  it  is  now  asserted  that  his  power 
has  been  broken.  In  Oaxaca,  a  small  reactionary  revolution¬ 
ary  has  been  started  by  the  ill-starred  Feliz  Diaz. 

Among  the  wealthy  upper  caste  of  Mexico,  Spanish  and 
foreign,  there  are  very  many  cultivated  people,  men  and 
women  of  a  high  type.  Many  of  these  have  been  banished 
by  the  Revolution  and  are  now  domiciled  in  the  United 
States.  Their  supporters  denounce  it  as  unjust  that  a  million 
intelligent,  cultivated  and  wealthy  people  should  be  domi- 
anted  by  fifteen  millions  of  ignorant  peasants.  The  plea 
is  old  in  human  history.  Men  of  culture  cannot  rule  as  a 
separate  caste.  They  must  get  down  to  help  lift  up  the 
mass.  Because  they  have  never  done  their  part  toward 
the  training  of  the  peon,  he  has  become  a  terrible  menace. 
Caste  divisions  are  themselves  a  menace  to  human  welfare 
and  the  ultimate  future  of  every  nation  is  bound  up  with 
democracy.  “Too  long  have  histories  looked  on  the  rich 
and  noble  as  marking  the  fate  of  the  world.” 

But  citizens  of  the  United  States,  among  them  men  of 
high  character  and  purpose,  have  been  murdered  in 
Mexico.  Properties  large  and  small  have  slipped  from 
American  hands  during  the  Revolution.  Yes,  because  it  was 
revolution,  not  often  because  the  victims  were  Americans. 
A  difficult  period  lies  ahead  when  some  tribunal,  perhaps 
International,  shall  decide  on  the  equity  of  foreign  holdings 
in  Mexico.  The  greatest  enemy  of  honest  investment  is  the 
dishonest  exploiter.  In  the  words  of  a  well-known  mine- 
owner  (in  a  private  letter,  July  7,  1916)  :  “No  province  of 
the  old  Roman  Empire  was  ever  looted  by  corrupt  proconsuls 
more  shamelessly  than  Mexico  has  been  by  the  grabbers  of 


10 


all  nations,  amongst  whom  those  of  the  United  States  stand 
facile  prince  ps” 

Moreover,  it  is  well  to  remember  that  neither  in  Inter¬ 
national  Law  nor  in  morals  is  there  any  warrant  for  the 
use  of  armies  of  invasion  for  the  purpose  of  safeguarding 
individuals  in  foreign  countries,  or  of  protecting  their  ven¬ 
tures  abroad.  All  that  we  can  claim  for  them,  if  we  re¬ 
spect  the  sovereignty  of  the  nation  in  question,  is  the  pro¬ 
tection  that  nation  affords  to  its  own  citizens.  Such  pro¬ 
tection  is  as  precarious  in  a  period  of  Revolution  as  it  now 
is  in  the  war  zones  of  Europe.  Some  holdings  are  doubtless 
valid.  Very  few  of  them  have  ever  paid  their  proper  share 
of  taxes.  The  present  impecuniosity  of  the  Carranza  gov¬ 
ernment  has  its  cause  in  inability  to  collect  just  taxes  and 
unwillingness  to  pay  exorbitant  interest  to  the  pawn-broker 
banks  these  same  interests  have  set  up. 

My  mining  friend  continues: 

“I  am  not  sure  that  the  rich  mines  in  which  I  am  myself 
interested  are  not  part  of  an  ancient  steal  under  the  flimsy 
disguise  of  a  Diaz  concession.  Whether  they  are  or  not  I 
will  see  them  all  in  northeast  Hades  before  I  ever  give  voice 
or  vote  for  this  Government  to  make  war  on  the  unfortunate 
victims  of  greed  in  its  most  shameless  form,  and  of  the  most 
arrant  tyranny  that  has  disgraced  the  American  continent 
since  the  days  of  Cortez.” 

In  a  similar  vein  Colonel  Daniel  M.  Burns,  for  thirty 
years  a  mine-owner  in  Mexico,  writes  to  the  San  Francisco 
Bulletin  (August  5,  1916)  : 

“Various  groups  of  foreign  interests  which  have  ex¬ 
ploited  Mexico  and  fattened  in  the  process  now  desire  Inter¬ 
vention.  But  their  point  of  view  is  not  mine.  I  do  not  wish 
to  see  Mexico  blotted  out  in  blood  by  this  nation  because  it 
is  the  stronger — or  to  have  tens  of  thousands  of  my  fellow 
countrymen  slaughtered  because  I  chance  to  have  some 
dollars  invested  there.” 

The  doctrine  assumed  by  Lord  Palmerston  that  any  in¬ 
vestor  or  adventurer  may  call  on  the  armed  forces  of  his 
nation  to  extricate  him  from  trouble  in  foreign  lands  has 
been,  in  Asia  and  in  Africa,  behind  many  of  the  indefensible 
acts  of  the  Great  Powers  of  Europe.  The  legal  remedy  for 
unfair  treatment  should  be  sought  in  channels  of  diplomacy 


11 


and  arbitration.  Our  rights  find  their  limit  in  demanding 
that  our  citizens  be  treated  as  justly  as  those  of  the  nation 
in  question.  The  assumption  of  the  right  or  duty  of  in¬ 
vasion  followed  by  annexation  is  the  basis  of  Imperialism. 
The  present  war  and  most  others  in  recent  years  is  largely 
the  result  of  the  clash  of  rival  imperialistic  schemes.  From 
the  point  of  view  of  democracy  the  whole  process  is  danger¬ 
ous  as  well  as  dishonorable. 

In  any  event  we  must  conclude  that  the  conflict  almost 
forced  on  the  United  States  in  June  by  ardent  exploiters 
and  their  journalistic  allies  would  have  led  us  into  most  un¬ 
worthy  lines  of  action.  The  apparent  crisis  was  due  ap¬ 
parently  to  serious  misunderstandings  on  both  sides,  now 
happily  for  the  time  at  least,  allayed.  Our  country  has  at 
present  no  just  reason  for  intervention  and  conquest,  and  I 
personally  see  no  prospect  of  it  in  the  future.  “There  are 
no  people”,  as  Lincoln  once  observed,  “good  enough  to  rule 
over  other  people  against  their  will.”  What  Mexico  wants 
of  us  is  not  more  war,  Roman  fashion,  “making  a  desert  to 
call  it  peace”,  but  our  understanding,  our  confidence  and 
our  help.  Education  first  and  flowing  from  it  justice, 
sanitation,  industry  and  thrift. 


12 


